[process2-comments] RFC-1

 Name: Arsen Organization: Moscow Linguistic University Position: Student What was so wrong with Barcelona.com? And what will go even wronger with the new rules? The main problem here is just WIPO seems to have forgotten the original purpose of dot-coms, that is COMmercial organisations, which does not really bring us any associations with official governmental bodies, that are non-profit (or at least originally supposed to be). The Arbitrator claimed an Internet user would expect to find somne official information from the city council while typing cityname.com in the browser window. Well, this is where the major mistake comes. When somebody is looking for the information on a certain geographical place, they type cityname.cc (country code) not a dotcom. Thus, if one was looking for official information on the city of Barcelona, they would look for Barcelona.sp (or whatever is the Spanish TLD). Furthermore, what are you going to do with such cities as, say, St.Petersburg? (There is one in Russia and there is one in the USA) Would the city council of the town of Bethlehem have more rights to the domain name Bethlehem.com than some Christian community? And on which grounds? Finally, what are you going to do with PittsburgPenguins.com if the government of the steel-city will start a public campaign for protecting the polar birds from unethical treatment? Another, major point is, of course, the celebrity names and other personal names. I mean, it is a clear cut case when you are, Marlon Brando, but what if you are, say, Nick Cage? Not realy the rarest name and surname you could think of, is it? Especially given the fact, that quite often people would name their children after their favourite actors or other celebreties. And what about all of them John Smiths? Bad faith, you say? OK, let's assume I am Nick Cage and own a personal homepage nickcage.com. Then one day somebody approaches me and introduces him-/herself as the agent of a certain Mr. Nicholas Cage, the actor, and asks me if I would like to sell the name to the guy. Well, this name is my property already (first come - first served, remember?) and I have just as much rigt to it. So if I'm selling it, why not sell it expensive, after all it is mine, so I can do whatever I want with it. After all, I might just be too unwilling to sell it and thus go for a totally unreal! and off-the-wall price to put the potential customer off straight away. So, I say USD1m, simply for the reason that I don't want to sell it. Well, and now guess what happens next. The agent comes to you, the WIPO, and starts screaming "bad faith"! And here I am, haven't ever really heard of any Cage-movies, deprived of my name, and all for nothing. Moreover, I might even get fined for as much as USD100,000, just because I didn't want to sell, MY name. Is that how you want the system to work? By the way, under the new rules, shouldn't you take away the name marlboro.com from the tobacco-manufacturer and transfer it to the official administration of the Marlboro County? Think about it WIPO... I am only glad I will not ever have to find myself in a mess like the one you are making for yourselves there. Good luck, WIPO!